551. AAI 07

Comment #82798 by Corylus on October 27, 2007 at 4:05 pm

Notsobad

Nor do the homeless who have healthy limbs but cannot bother to work.

and

Someone with healthy limbs should not become homeless in the first place!

You might want to actually take a look a homeless people. Interestingly, there are several types.

1) The teenagers and those in their early twenties (warning sometimes life can make people look older than they actually are). I wonder what sort of home they have left?

2) Those in their forties (who sit still and say little) - isn't it interesting that these are generally male? Maybe men are tougher and better able to cope on the streets? Or maybe these are ex-servicemen with mental health problems who have left the army after 20 years of being housed and fed (in exchange for getting shot at) and find themselves ill-equipped to look after themselves.

3) Those (of all ages and both sexes who wander along muttering to themselves). Well, according to you as they have arms and legs and should be working. Screw the schizophrenia - get a job!

4) There are the drunks and the addicts as well, and yes, they could help themselves and maybe they will always be about.

However, there are less of them when iniatives are in place to help those that want to get off the streets. This involves spending a little money. (Well spent if you ask me, we all suffer from the crime committed by those feeding addictions).

5) The really old ones. Oh no, silly me! These don't exist because life expectancy is not exactly helped by being on the streets.

You appear to see these people as a waste. I happen to see their treatment as a waste. Who knows what these people could be if they were helped instead of stepped over?

I'm going to bed. I am sick of this thread and some of the people on it.

552. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #82791 by Corylus on October 27, 2007 at 3:25 pm

CHeard.

The news reports on this were just awful.

Obviously, an unbelievably stressful and distressing time for so many people.

Best wishes.
C.

553. AAI 07

Comment #82783 by Corylus on October 27, 2007 at 2:52 pm

I don't often get in political scraps on here, but this is unbelievable.

Jack Rawlinson comment 54.

Bloody well said.

OBC I think Bonzai was quite polite.

If someone called me a bigot and a racist without a shread of evidence then I would have been considerably less restrained.

Scooter I am going to be so blunt here, but you are being unbelievably simplistic.

While going to your doctors for a physical is a good thing - it doesn't stop you getting sick.

You are completely failing to see that we are all economically and yes socially connected.

If one person gets sick it is not merely their problem - it is also their family's problem, and thereby society's problem (because it is not only them that stops earning).

As someone who spent a couple of years in a part time job because of being a carer I happen to know a little bit about this.

I couldn't afford things then - and no I wasn't a "cry baby" about it. I could have said "own it" it's your problem and got a higher paid job and contributed more to the economy. However, what sort of a person would that have made me?

N.B. This was in the left-wing UK - I dread to think what my position would have been in the US.

Frankly, I am of the opinion that it is actually you that needs to "grow up".

554. '55 'Origin of Life' Paper Is Retracted

Comment #82022 by Corylus on October 25, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Dr. Jacobson ran a search for his name on Google.

Woah - googling your own name (especially if you have an unusual one) always terrifying!

That moment of sheer dread and the 'Do I really want to be doing this??' before you hit the search button...

You've got guts Doc - and well done for dealing with the results and getting pissed.

555. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #81906 by Corylus on October 25, 2007 at 11:31 am

Comment #15 by Fanusi Khiyal:

That was insulting, unjustified and uncalled for, Fanusi.

Brian is a big boy and capable of speaking for himself. However, I have to say I really think you need to learn some manners.

556. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81321 by Corylus on October 24, 2007 at 3:28 pm

"We live in a post-modern world now. Atheists are being dreadfully old-fashioned to make truth claims at all.

God / religon all that stuff, well, it's just another paradigm, another worldview, another route to individual and cultural truth.

No given worldview is any better or worse than any other."

557. Italy's Padre Pio 'faked his stigmata with acid'

Comment #81306 by Corylus on October 24, 2007 at 3:01 pm

I flatter myself that I am a fair-minded type so before commenting I took a minute to look up the various uses of carbolic acid (I figured there was a slight possibility that the Padre was merely using it to shift those stubborn kitchen stains that other cleaners can't reach).

Basically:-

1) Can be used as an anti-septic, but not often as on contact with the skin causes severe irritation (redness, burns etc). Tricky stuff too see too because it is colourless.

2) If injected into the heart can cause instantaneous death.

3) Used in research for DNA purification

4) Used in surgery for ingrown toenails.

Well, 2, 3, and 4 seem unlikely (especially more than once).

So looks like #1 seems to be our boy.

I admit my source was only wikipedia so if anyone else wants to posit an alternative explanation for the padre's pharmacy* visit then I am all ears.

Until then well... Liar, liar pants on fire.

*Wasted opportunity too, there are lots of other wonderful things that you might want to purchase from a pharmacy in secret. For example,

1) Athletes foot powder (I have some of this in my bathroom - apparently good for dhobi itch too - whatever that is ;-)
2) Preparation H
3) Lavender bath balls (why choose to smell like your ancient aunt??)
3) Those magical nasal inhalers than clear the nostrils of stubborn snot.

The list is endless.

558. Prejudicial concerns

Comment #80925 by Corylus on October 23, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Posieden and Barbara

It irritates me that the "religious" can ignore most of the nonsense written in the buy-bull, but not for some strange reason when it comes to sexuality, they cling on to this homophobic religious bullshit like a drowning man would cling to a piece of driftwood. I wonder why that is?

Personal theory. I think that this is because homosexuality is a minority position (and is apt to remain that way - unlike outdated dietary restrictions or injunctions concerning the mixing of fibres or crops).

We are status animals - if we can't be top dog we like to be part of the accepted majority. Lack of status becomes bearable, as long as there is some available 'other' to look down upon.

Homosexuality is a convenient, and statistically stable, other.

For 90% (give or take) of people, no matter how low on your luck they are, what vile acts they may have committed or how many people they may have hurt, they can always boost their fragile self esteem by saying "Well at least that's not me!"

If "God" agrees then this cowardly position is given validation.

Auden (a gay man) nailed it:

...Is true of the normal heart;
For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone...

Not all religious people are homophobes, of course, but it is infuriatingly common.

559. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #80919 by Corylus on October 23, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Bluejway

I have read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris, and I have also read all of "God is Not Great." I think understand atheism well enough. And I am more than happy to let you help me improve my understanding of it.

It is great that you are willing to read these books - may a make a teeny suggestion?? Check out the philosopher Julian Baggini's Atheism: A Very Short Introduction.

It is a great little book and sets out the arguments in a completely non-emotional way. (You seem to be a philosophically inclined type - so I think you will enjoy this approach).

V - Morning sweetie :-)

560. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #79642 by Corylus on October 18, 2007 at 3:27 am

I've had to answer questions about having a girl's name all my life, which is always fun.

Don't worry Rev

Could have been worse :-)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M89c3hWx3RQ

561. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79528 by Corylus on October 17, 2007 at 2:56 pm

Intriguing - I'm interested in just who the "1st year philosophy Professor / ex graduate student of a very famous atheist" was. The one who was so embarrassed at having never read a "good, solid, rational, academic" work of Christian theology.

Not Harris, because as a student himself he wouldn't have a graduate student. Hitchens is a journalist so ditto. Dawkins would have biology grad students so that's out. Dennett? Can't conceive of him putting up with anyone not reading all sides of an argument. Grayling? Doubtful - I believe the man wrote a book on Berkeley. (To my shame another on my 'to read' list - maybe the references in this are lacking, but I doubt it) Onfray? Students would be French - does he still teach anyway?

You know I find myself wondering whether this person was merely a friend. The type of friend people talk to their doctors about when they are worried that their friend might have a STD....

562. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #79344 by Corylus on October 17, 2007 at 2:11 am

Sorry to butt in here, Dianelos, but I think you might be stretching the concept of 'intentionality' a bit far. At heart intentionality is merely the understanding that thoughts, beliefs, desires etc. are all 'about' things - i.e. refer to them.

When you start talking about 'will' then you are running the risk of using the word 'intentional' in terms of its common everyday usage (rather than its philosophical fashion) i.e. an action performed with the goal of bring about a specific end.

These are not the same thing.

563. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79341 by Corylus on October 17, 2007 at 1:50 am

That was quite fascinating.

I was so glad Hitchens started out on the attack about morality - theists seem to assume that atheists must be on the defensive about this one. It was quite telling that this was the first question from the audience. I'm astonished at how often this 'objective moraliy' card is played. E.g. "Ah, but atheists don't have objective morality"... and you think you do, sunshine??

Re McGrath's mannerisms - he didn't jump about in that fashion (what my grandmother used to refer to as 'ants in your pants') in the interview with RD, so I don't think this is a constant habit with him.

I suspect instead that this was a displacement activity: I would bet cash money the man was terrified.

564. God Hates the World

Comment #79186 by Corylus on October 16, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Welcome, Nate.

(I'll leave it there, because I'm not into platitudes. I can't imagine what your childhood was like, or how you felt watching that video - so I won't comment).

Just... welcome.

565. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78973 by Corylus on October 15, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Very interesting comment Ravy.

As far as one can tell from words on a page - you come across as a very open and honest person. I would like to respond in detail, but you have caught me at my bedtime and I have a long day at work tomorrow so I will leave that to others.

Can I make a suggestion? If you want to read a book by Dawkins I would go for Unweaving the Rainbow first (and then read the God Delusion). It is a lovely book talking about how we feel wonder in the face of the universe. It is actually my favourite of his books because it is lyrical and full of poems, which appeals to the hippy in me. I think you will enjoy it. (It may well answer some of your questions)

I have to quickly answer one of your points though. Why do you assume that you need God in order to notice beauty and feel wonder? I think maybe you are giving God too much credit and yourself too little. This is not an arrogant atheistic assertion by the way. This is a compliment.

A commentator or here called Bluebird linked to this page a little while ago (and I have taken to looking at it every morning)

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

you get a new astronomy picture every day - some of them are quite remarkable: check out the archives.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html

Try looking at these pictures assuming that a grand cosmic agency is behind them - then look again assuming that they merely are. Is your sense of wonder any less when you view them the second time? Are they any less beautiful?

God doesn't define our experience of beauty and wonder: we do that all by ourselves.

566. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78836 by Corylus on October 15, 2007 at 3:42 am

Yep

Fox news just keeps on giving....

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?101407/101407_ff_links&FOX_Friends&School%2520Shooting%2520Links&School%2520Shooting%2520Links&US&-1&News&236&&&new

567. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #78645 by Corylus on October 14, 2007 at 3:33 am

Thowes26 Apology accepted :-)

I don't often get riled on here - my response to you had as much to do with my dislike and mistrust of Lane Craig than your comments.

For a start his association with the Discovery Institute demonstrates a great deal...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_institute

I personally would not want to be associated with any organisation that took money from Howard Ahmanson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Ahmanson%2C_Jr

Oddly enough Lane Craig has just been mentioned in another thread - I have been reading an article by him linked by a poster called Steven Carrwork see below

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767

I have to say I find his defence of genocide frankly nauseating.

I share your dislike of christian fundamentalists, however, there are times when I appreciate their honesty. Moderates can be lovely people, but it can be frustrating trying to get them to state precisely what they mean.

Lane Craig is the worst of both worlds - he is a fundamentalist who pretends to be a moderate. I suggest you do further research on him. This man talks about 'reasonable faith' in one breath and makes unjustifiable and frankly peculiar assertions in another. He has spent money on dentistry and a shiny suit, but I feel I know what manner of man he is.

N.B I am not ignoring your questions BTW - they are interesting, but many of them are discussed in great length on the thread I mentioned - do check it out.

Also, I find myself wondering whether you are also a fan of Plantinga? His reveiw of TGD is posted on here too. (Nice that dissenting articles are put up isn't it?)

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,676,The-Dawkins-Confusion-Naturalism-ad-absurdum,Alvin-Plantinga,page1#comments

Many people commented on it. Some just expressed a dislike for philosophy - which may irritate you, however, some people took the time out to thoroughly engage with what he said. I think you might find their comments interesting.

In fact lots to read, listen too and watch in the archives of this site. There is a search function on the top left of the home page. Why don't you just read for a bit?

Best, C.

568. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #78566 by Corylus on October 13, 2007 at 3:59 pm

Mark

As someone who hasn't read a bible since their very early teens (and remembers little) I have only been reading this thread - and not commenting.

It is obvious that you have spent a great deal of time writing out your comments. I have to say that I have learnt a lot from you and the other posters on here.

Please accept a complete stranger's best wishes.

Billy

Then I'm going to make mice with boobs on their backs - but that's another story.

What the F&%K?? I'm quite happy with mine where they are thank you very much!!

Scampers off... speedily.

569. Lewis Wolpert and William Lane Craig on Religion

Comment #78560 by Corylus on October 13, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Thowes26

Interesting comment. You start with an insult - why do I suspect that you are a christian: this tends to be an opening salvo with many on here.

I wish an atheist with half a brain would come in to settle this ridicliousness. I suppose if you're an atheist with half a brain, you wouldn't be on Richard Dawkins' site, as the good atheist philosopher Michael Ruse said, "The God Delusion made me feel ashamed to be an atheist."

I see...

You then go on to make some factual assertions. The first one I agree with:-

The "Brain in Vat" argument is not being used as a proof...

No. It is not being used as a proof, for the simple reason that it is not a proof.

however

its being used to show the necessity for faith.

No. What it is being used as is a shameless ploy to create a sense of nausea and uncertainty with those unfamiliar with philosophical arguments.

Dr. Craig doesn't believe he's a brain in a vat, but he admits that he holds to that truth with faith.

If so then he is completely misusing the term 'faith'. Justifed knowledge might be a better description for his position - not so snappy though is it?

Don't be misled to say all philosophical arguments for God's existence have been formerly refuted, because the jury is still out. I don't know how many times I've heard bad atheists say things like "Hume refuted that," well no Hume didn't refute that, but his argument may have been persuasive.

Not a problem - one does not have to refute an argument postulating God's existence, one merely has to show that they are inadequate. However, I would be interested to learn precisely what you mean by the term 'bad atheist'?

The teleological argument in its inductive form has not been refuted, but with all probabalistic arguments, it needs to be weighed with other evidence.

Maybe I am being stupid here, but I simply do not understand your reasoning. Could you please spell out precisely what you mean. Are you saying that:

a) It is impossible to refute the telelogical argument?
b) That induction is a route to knowledge / is not a route to knowledge?
c) That the telelogical argument is in some fashion 'probabalistic?

Or are you merely babbling?

I'm not trying to argue you out of atheism, but simply into rational discussion. Its really difficult to have rational discussions with fundamentalists, wither they be atheist or theist fundamentalists.

Kindly explain what you mean by the term 'atheist fundamentalist'.

In fact, scrub that - why don't you just check out the following thread:-

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1212,Richard-Dawkins-and-Alister-McGrath,Root-of-All-Evil-Uncut-Interviews

It is a little long a tedious at times, but there is lots of discussion on there on the issues that appear to interest you. I do believe that there are even examples of 'rational discussions' on there! (Believe it or not people on here are capable of this - even if they are dreadfully handicapped by only having 'half a brain')

I would be interested in your views on this thread.

Come back when you have read it and learnt some manners.

P.S. "Scientism"...please. When did you stop beating your wife?

P.P.S. "ridicliousness" is this a word?

570. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78162 by Corylus on October 12, 2007 at 3:02 am

RichardM

I love your style and all your comments, but I'm not sure that you're quite ready for the diplomatic corps.

Now what was the phrase concerning pots and kettles heard recently??

Richard - not getting at you, cariad, but I have to say you do make me smile at times :-)

P.S. What's was with the flashing backside?

571. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #78047 by Corylus on October 11, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Comment 77283 by Epeeist

3. You should now be able to determine how much 40K has decayed and hence how much energy has been released
4. Now work out what happens to the temperature of the earth when you release that much energy over a 6000 year period rather than a 4.5 billion year period

How interesting - I hadn't thought of decay in terms of energy release before.

I suppose there would have to be energy involved: by definition.

Epeeist - excuse me if I come across as an arts type asking a unbelievably daft question, but is this a 1st Law thing? (I am willing to risk asking silly questions on a public forum whilst attempting to learn things).

----

Devolved - buggered if I can work it out either. However, my gut tells me that we would be fucked.

I'm not entirely sure whether we also would be fried or frozen, but I get the feeling at least one 'f' word would probably apply.

572. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #78008 by Corylus on October 11, 2007 at 1:08 pm

I am sorry I am going to briefly rant. I am also sorry for posting on this thread, but as we have been discussing anger, I feel this is appropriate. I need to get something off my chest before I punch the wall.

I have just been flicking through the news channels as is my wont. I stopped at Fox News and am now utterly appalled.

It was reporting on a story concerning a recent school shooting in America (Ohio I believe). Reason enough for being appalled, (and also depressed and tearful at the waste of life), but this is not the whole story. Oh no.

Their resident religious pundit on there "Father Jonathan" I believe his name is (a baby faced individual who just looks so damn nice) just came on. I expected a brief homily on how we should all get along and be kind in the face of tradegy. Not a bit of it.

The problem is because these kids (aka kids who shoot up schools) 'have atheism in their lives'. Not that that some children have mental health problems that are not picked up on quickly. Not that they have access to guns. Not that widespread bullying seems to be tolerated.

No. Atheism is the problem.

If anyone is capable of making a video of this sanctimonious, slimy, cretinous carrion-eater and posting it - then please do so.

I am not capable of relaying precisely what this individual just said because the blood was pounding through my ears at the time and I like to be very clear about exactly what I am accusing people of.

I am hoping that I misheard. I am hoping that I misunderstood. I am hoping that the brief piece of a news story I heard was totally unrepresentative. If so I will post a full and grovelling apology for my intemperate language.

Anyone wanting to know why atheists are angry need only switch on Fox News.

Rant over. Thank you for listening.

573. The New Atheism: An Interview with Mitchell Cohen

Comment #77879 by Corylus on October 11, 2007 at 1:56 am

Tries to imagine what it would be like to be able to respond so swiftly, clearly and lucidly to verbal questions....

Fails abysmally!

Very interesting article (even if it did make me feel thick) - lots to think about in it.

574. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #77531 by Corylus on October 9, 2007 at 2:38 pm

Northern Bright

Re: Alister McGrath and Christopher Hitchens...

Sorry. Bit of Schadenfreude slipping in there. But go on, be honest - you feel it too, don't you? ;-)

Oh yes :-)

As someone who also waded through his irritating book on the grounds of being intellectually honest I hear you.

There was one stunner of a line in it though:

The 144,000 are probably Christian aesthetic 'warriors' who are using pacifist means and spiritual warfare to resist secular atheist powers and cosmic evil powers" (p74. End note 26)

(One strongly suspects this is how McGrath views himelf)

On reading this I had this hilarious mental picture of him leaping around the house with a pillowcase over his shoulders (in the fashion of a five year old playing superman) practicing using his 'spiritual warfare' to resist 'cosmic evil powers'.

One almost feels sorry for him...

575. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77307 by Corylus on October 9, 2007 at 2:16 am

Revcort
(Comment 1141) - I am having trouble making your link work. In the meantime though as it appears you are willing to show us pictures of yours tis only fair that we show you pictures of ours :D

Can I ask you to check out the website of the National History Museum in London?

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/

I love the dinosaur picture on this page.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/visitor-research/index.html

In fact, their reference materials on dinosaurs are fascinating.

http://internt.nhm.ac.uk/jdsml/nature-online/dino-directory/

You would think that with that amount of the critters about there would be more mention of them in the bible if they had really lived side-by-side with humans?? Oh well.

Oh, and remember what I said earlier about cost? Admission to this museum is free.

CHeard I read your blog entry - very interesting. Thank you for taking the time to write out.

576. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77158 by Corylus on October 8, 2007 at 3:51 pm

There is a flip side to all this worrying about our terminology, in that it is often just as interesting to ask what believers would like to call us.

If, for example, I am chatting with someone who calls me a skeptic or a rationalist then I know precisely what I am dealing with.

If they merely call me an atheist I take no offence (I have no problem with the term and use it myself). I merely try to tease out whether they buy into any (possible) negative connotations.

If they want to call me inherently insulting terms (we all know them, e.g. infidel etc...) Well then... all I can say is that this says infinitely more about them than me.

---

What really pisses me off though is 'fundamentalist atheist' - a certain beloved troll is back and I am resisting the desire to feed him :-(

577. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #77093 by Corylus on October 8, 2007 at 12:36 pm

CHeard said

Why are you people so angry?

Okay, I say that tongue in cheek. But there's a speech being given tonight at my university, where the title is, "Why Are Atheists So Angry?" I actually have not seen much evidence that atheists are "so angry," nor do I even know how to make sense of the title without an "about …" attached. So, are you angry? If so, what about?

Blimy CHeard I reckon you are going to get a lot of responses for that one! (I suspect _J_* is sharpening his pencil as we speak:-)

You can only understand anger (if indeed any exists) if you understand the type of anger being discussed, so for that reason I would break it down into sections.

Let's get the red herring out of the way first.

Anger at God.
Atheists are not angry at God. It is impossible to be angry at what does not exist. Believers are often angry at God (generally in response to the problem of evil) they then have a tendency to project this anger upon atheists. We see this anger as irrational and happily give it up to the faithful.

Atheists do get vexed though. Why? Several reasons.

1) Political anger.
This is annoyance at the continual chipping erosion at the ideal of the separation of Church and State (which is well funded and often disgustingly underhand). The ultimate aim of which is to control legislation and thus inflict the views of the (often extreme minority) upon all. This is unfair, undemocratic and unjustified.

N.B. I am not saying that there is something wrong with people with religious affiliations being members of the legislature. Of course not! However, any argument made about legislation, taxation and government must stand or fall on its own merits and not merely be an appeal to faith.

Obviously, not only atheists feel this way - many religious people do also, but it is a common reason for irritation amongst non-believers. This leads me to the next point..

2) Anger at hypocrisy.
Often the legislation that the religious groups wish to enact is related to purely private matters i.e. what you get up to in your own bedroom. What is this obsession with gay marriage about?? You might enjoy this little song...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1054,Defenders-of-Marriage,Roy-Zimmerman

Sigh. Isn't it often the way that the people who have the least to brag about in the morality stakes often claim the most right to dictate to others? When someone wishes to legislate against other people harmlessly enjoying themselves then there are three possible explanations:

a) They are concerned for the immortal souls of others (charitable explanation).
b) They are not having any fun themselves and don't want others to either (uncharitable explanation).
c) They are having lots of fun, but they want the added frisson of doing it illegally (really uncharitable explanation)

Anger when it turns out to be 'c' is, I feel, entirely justified.

3) Anger at lies.
The love of the truth is a virtue. Many believers have this love (I accept this even if I feel that their version of truth is mistaken). Atheists feel this also - so when people push lies upon others (particularly innocent children), they become vexed. The misrepresentation and often out-right denial of scientific evidence is a dreadful thing. (N.B. I have checked out your amazing blog and see you understand this anger well :-) I have huge respect for your position on this)

4. Anger at being insulted.
When you talk about Gods morality, experience of love, or meaning to life etc. all that you are talking about is God. One being (even if she exists) cannot define the morality, experience or meaning of another (at most she can only contribute) - this is an unjustified ascertion.

Accordingly, when an atheist denies/seriously doubts the existence of God then they do not; as a consequence of this; become incapable of acting morally, experiencing love or feeling that their life and the lifes of others have meaning. (This is a sloppy conclusion).
They merely define these things for themselves. Believers do this too; unfortunately, they are often less honest when they do so. (See reason for anger #3).

---

There are other reasons for anger, of course. It is easy it get cross over the actions performed by many with only 'faith' as a justification. E.g. the dreadful treatment of women, circumcism on non-consenting infants, outdated and inhumane methods of animal slaughter etc. etc.

I could go on, but I don't want to give the impression that I am angry. I have a sunny disposition. Honestly.

Bottom line with all this? Is there one single point that can sum the above up?

I would simply make the point that it is often informative to look at when an atheist is asked the question 'Why are you so angry?' There is a fair bet that this is generally after a considerable amount of time being politically unrepresented, dictated to by the unworthy, lied to and insulted.

Who wouldn't be a little cross??

[Edited for clarity and typo]

*_J_ Not saying that you are angry! Just that I know you love open questions :-)

578. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76970 by Corylus on October 8, 2007 at 1:48 am

Keith

And while we're at it (everybody), what does 'IMO' mean?

I use this site for running through references that others seem to understand and I don't.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/

I suspect you will enjoy their definition of 'LOL'

Caution: you can search the most innocuous words on there and discover that there is often someone using them in an unbelievably crude/crass way - but then I'm easily shocked :-)

579. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #76862 by Corylus on October 7, 2007 at 1:54 pm

Cheers V - glad I didn't imagine it.

SG - That McGinney woman sounds quite the sensation. I must say that I have never heard of her before. (Although I admit that in the mid 70's I was rather preoccupied with sucking on rusks and wailing :-).

Will look her up.

580. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #76855 by Corylus on October 7, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Perkyjay

I don't think my old tape has A Child's Christmas in Wales on it (still looking for the darned thing - curses!). It is more of a general poetry anthology - i.e an excerpt from the Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner and Desiderata and suchlike. (I will keep an eye out in the audiobook section).

Oddly enough - I don't think your limerick is on it either ;-) Although if Burton has made a recording I will happily listen!

581. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #76828 by Corylus on October 7, 2007 at 11:55 am

Bluebird

The power of the human voice to attract/repel is relevant.

Ah, yes, I have to say I am a sucker for perfect diction myself...

(said the actress to the bishop ;-)

... ransacks cupboard to dig out old tape of Richard Burton reading poetry.

582. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #76824 by Corylus on October 7, 2007 at 11:42 am

That is a lovely speech by RD.

I suspect made easier to write because the quotes from Dennett are so inspiring and deserve repetition.

Well done Dan.

583. Scandal brewing at Oral Roberts U.

Comment #76821 by Corylus on October 7, 2007 at 11:30 am

Am I correct in thinking the Jerry Falwell's spawn have now taken over the running of Liberty University?

(Someone please tell me if I have got the wrong end of the stick)

One hopes that someone is keeping an eye on them...

584. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76612 by Corylus on October 6, 2007 at 12:39 pm

Blackhaw

Just above the little box into which you write your comments is a clickable link called 'comment posting guidelines'. If you click on this you will get instructions on how to put the quotes of others into little boxes and also how to put important things in bold (like the name of the specific poster to whom you are responding).

Doing this makes it alot easier for anyone reading a discussion to get a handle on what is going on.

Thanks.

585. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #76568 by Corylus on October 6, 2007 at 10:02 am

Idle curiosity on my part here Revcort.

Can you tell me how much admission costs to the Creation Museum?

Plus just how inflated are the prices in any food outlets attached and the gift shop? ( NB. I say 'just how' because this things are costly in every museum I have ever been in, but I would like some idea of scale.)

Are there lots of collection boxes in prominent points? (i.e. to pay for the upkeep of the museum). Also, are there notices up with the names of benefactors in prominents places or any other psychological incentives to give money?

I would like to be able to calculate how much cash they are making out of this one.

Cheers.

586. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76190 by Corylus on October 5, 2007 at 2:29 am

Mark8
Thanks for the google link - I am listening now.

Tetratornis - very interesting posts - thank you for taking the time to write them out :-)

Also, a little light relief for those annoyed with the format.

Sometimes not being able to answer the question given can be entertaining...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq8ZnQ95cKk

It's bit dated now, but a classic.

587. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75752 by Corylus on October 3, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Revcort, it is very easy to scan read some of the posts on here and gloss over important points and nuances. (I know this because I have often been guilty of this myself - I can be unbelievably daft at times)

Can I make a suggestion? This site provides a function whereby you can print out comments. At the top of this article near the date you will see a little printer icon, click on this and select 'print with comments'. You will get a nice printout with no margins chopped off.

Sit down for a day in a quiet place and re-read, I reckon you will notice points that you didn't pick up on before. Then sleep on it and read again. (I have done this with some of the long threads on here and learnt alot).
---
P.S. I feel for you with the whole fighting the flab thing. On reading the discussion between yourself and Goldy , I realised that I too am not as fit as I was (hitting 30 really is a killer isn't it?) Accordingly, I threw myself into the swimming pool today - it didn't go well. I heard a soft voice in the back of my head. (Don't get excited it wasn't Jesus!) It was an old schoolteacher of mine. Do you know what it said?

"Today children we are going to demonstrate Archimedes' theory of water displacement..."

Sigh.

588. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #75746 by Corylus on October 3, 2007 at 2:41 pm

Hip-Priest

I really shouldn't talk about stuff I've learnt about on wikipedia.

I would tell you off for this disgusting,despicable, heinous sin, Hip-Priest. However...

He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone...

Who say's atheists can't learn from the bible ;-)

589. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75438 by Corylus on October 2, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Religion as the logical path to evil deeds: interesting question. If anyone is interested in my ramblings on this, I will give you my take on it...

One of the reasons I decided to study psychology was because I was fascinated at what made people (especially outwardly normal people) do vile things. (Some people are just sadists of course, and some people have no feeling for others, but there are the minority). What is it about normal 'decent' people that makes them stop caring for others and mistreat them?

I came to the conclusion that it pretty much boils down to the evil twins called 'out-group hostility' and 'conformity'.

Out-group hostility
We are born into a complicated world with a huge amount of sensory imput to process, accordingly we categorise things and place them into sets and subsets. The first categorization that seems to take place is the 'I' and the 'not I' then we move on the 'family' and 'not family' and so on. Finally we get to 'people we know' and 'people we don't know.' This is useful and helps us make sense of the world. We need to organise people and objects into groups (sets and sub-sets) in order to get by.

Trouble is, we overdo it. There is nothing wrong with talking about 'us' and 'them' when it is merely a statement of fact (e.g. born in one country vs born in other). However, it is very, very easy to move from 'us' and 'them' to 'us' and 'only them' . When it is 'only them' then the problems 'they' experience become less pressing and their pain becomes less important. Taken to extremes their pain can be dismissed as irrelevant and eventually glorified in.

Conformity
We like to fit in. We like to be liked, We can't all be shining stars. We are status animals and if we can't be top-dog we can always try for some reflected glory by sucking up and doing what we are told. Young men are particularly prone to this in that being liked gets them laid more often (they tend to be somewhat preoccupied with this). Trouble is, when the top-dog tells you do something bad, then this instruction is hard to ignore.


So what does any of the above have to do with religion? Simple, religion bolsters both of these nasties. Out-group hostility is legitimised because a given member of a religion will assume that a member of another religion is not only 'different;, but 'lesser'. Conformity is encouraged in religion in that there are rules to be followed, goals to be met and people who must be obeyed (these are generally men in strange clothing)

So, while it is simplistic to say that 'religion is the logical path to evil deeds', you can safely say that in many circumstances and situations it makes evil deeds seem rational, understandable and condoned by the group with which people identify. This is when 'good people do evil things'.*

There are other things that prop up these nasties. Of course, religion is not the only route to evil deeds. Of course religious people can perform good actions.

It is however a pretty glaring example. Religion stops being a route to evil deeds when it's practitioners give up on the placing of people into groups (saved/hellbound) and when it stop demanding conformity and blind obedience.

It will stop enabling evil deeds when it's adherents clearly and consistently condemn those who use their religion as a rationale or excuse for evil deeds.

This has not happened yet.

---
*What about those people that are just gits anyway? Religion helps them too in that it gives the sadists and the sociopaths (who cause trouble wherever they are) a generally excepted excuse for brutality and selfishness.
___

Fides_et_ratio (Comment 58) - what have you been doing to your hyphen button to make it break in such a fashion? I can understand the unthinking pounding on the "!" button or even the "?" button, (I have been guilty of the shameless misuse of both) but the hyphen?

Maybe you have just been writing your name alot. Banging onto the hyphen button (whilst simultaneously holding onto the 'shift' button) in a vain attempt to reconcile incompatable concepts.

Devolved you never did tell me about your views on the moon-landings? I believe you have questions unanswered in other threads.

590. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75053 by Corylus on October 1, 2007 at 1:34 pm

I hope I'm wrong too, Northern Bright, but I would like Mr Good to make himself clear on this point.

If he does then I will, of course, apologise.

591. Letters: Theology has no place in a university

Comment #75041 by Corylus on October 1, 2007 at 12:35 pm

Janet Factor

I'd like to take a different tack here, and argue that there is something theology can tell us—but not about god. It can tell us about ourselves.

"The organised body of knowledge dealing with the nature, attributes, and governance of God" is really an organized body of knowledge about human preferences in fantasy objects."

Interesting analysis Janet. (Sounds like a book/Phd subject - you could do a huge analysis of different conceptualisations of God throughout history and look at how he changes with different epochs) I doubt the theologians would play though :-)

Re: Business studies students - bless 'em. All of their lectures were at 9.00 at my old uni : they were the only ones that could be guarenteed to turn up at that disgusting hour of the morning (practising for the wonderful world of work no doubt). I used to watch them from my bedroom window. Off they would scuttle with their little briefcases in their hands cheerfully discussing how to invest the money from their student loans in the stock market and leave college debt free...

Wankers.

592. Atheists arise: Dawkins spreads the A-word among America's unbelievers

Comment #75025 by Corylus on October 1, 2007 at 11:46 am

Nick Good - South Africa

PS - I have a foreskin

I like learning about the other posters on here and hearing their stories.

However, I don't see how this is is relevant to a discussion on Chomsky or American politics in general.

EDIT: Smacks head! Doh! Is this your way of accusing Dawkins of anti-semitism? That is a serious charge Nick.

593. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #75018 by Corylus on October 1, 2007 at 11:20 am

RichardM

Just be cool. As an adolescent, the more he sees you getting uptight about it, the more appealing it will seem to him.

Absolutely.

I had some peculiar notions in my early teens (occult phase) I realised it was drivel eventually. I think it would have taken me alot longer if I my parents had told me what to think: I'm stubborn.

Tommcc you can't dictate his religious views to him: bottom line they are his own choice. I wouldn't worry too much though, if he asking questions and reading then he is obviously a smart kid - he will work it through eventually. Just encourage him to read all kinds of different viewpoints and give him some space.

You know, he may simply just get bored - creationism takes alot of energy to maintain because of all of the evidence against it.

594. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74875 by Corylus on October 1, 2007 at 1:14 am

GSP

To deepen my question then: Can religion be a force for good (in the sense that a democratic regime is better than an authoritarian regime). I think yes. Can religion produce the motivation for others to overcome their authoritarian oppressors and push for democracy?

The motivation for overcoming authoritarian oppressors come from not liking being oppressed. You can express this dissatisfaction in religious terms of course, e.g. "God said - Let my people go". However, this is a side-effect not a cause.

You can argue that religion helps in terms of political lobbying in that people are already in groups. Fine. However, I would say this effect is more than cancelled out by the facts that:-

a) It is perfectly possible to form non-religious lobby groups.

b) Often the teachings of religion are at variance with political freedom (i.e. arguing that a caliphate is a good thing and that democracy is bad).

c) Because the separation of church and state is a relatively new concept you often find that religious organisations are actually either the ones doing the oppressing or symbiotically linked to an oppressive government.

595. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74872 by Corylus on October 1, 2007 at 12:48 am

GSP

To answer your question I have added a few words to what you have said.

I am just curious, Can an atheist have a positive belief [about fairies]?

If yes, could not this atheist, as long as that belief [about fairies] coincided with their action, theoretically act upon that action, potentially producing negative consequences which would in turn be the result of their atheism [view on fairies]?

I'm being a bit playful here, but can you see my point? :-)

Not believing in something merely means that it is no longer a factor in any analysis. Can atheists act negatively? Absolutely - they are human too! However, is their disbelief in fairies a cause for this? Nah.

N.B. Possibly a helpful way of looking at this is to think about agnostics. They do not base their actions on a belief in God, because they feel this is an unanswerable question.
Ask yourself whether you think agnostics can act badly because of said scepticism?

596. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74865 by Corylus on October 1, 2007 at 12:08 am

GSP

When you ask your yourself the interesting question of 'Can religion be a force for good?' you need to realise that this question is open ended and imprecise. In order to analyse the issue properly you need to add the sub-questions of 'For whom?' and 'Are these actions good in themselves?

Let's look at a concrete example. I know, the emphasis that religion puts on charity.

At first sight you say 'Great!' However, look deeper...

1) For whom? If there is an emphasis on charitable giving only to members of your own community then is that really charity? You could argue that this is merely a form of self-interest and a legitimisation of out-group hostily.

2) 'Are these actions good in themselves?' Is the unthinking acceptance of people being poor a good thing? Tthe ultimate and proper aim of charity is to eliminate the need for it's own existence. Maybe it would be better to concentrate on why people are poor and tackle those issues instead? For example, maybe the women have no access to contraception and thus have more children than they can comfortably suport. Does religion help to eliminate this cause of poverty or instead encourage it?

The question of whether 'religion poisons everything' is a difficult and complicated issue - which needs cool-headed analysis

However, to give you some idea of where I sit on this one - consider the possible answers to the following questions...

1) In the public sphere is the separation of church and state a good thing? (i.e. are secular governments freer than theocratic ones? Compare and contrast notable examples)

2) In the private sphere does the assumption that you have a hotline to God and are thus qualified to prosletyse to your neighbours a good thing? (Or is it patronising, irritating and a damned impertinance?)

597. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74812 by Corylus on September 30, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Billy

As you are online at the moment - I think you might be way better at helping this guy than me...

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1690,There-Go-The-Dinosaurs,Jack-T-Chick#74804

598. There Go The Dinosaurs

Comment #74802 by Corylus on September 30, 2007 at 2:23 pm

SharonMcT and_J_

Re Benway I have reading him for a while now and it is not just that he is smart (which he obviously is) other people on here are smart too. I reckon it boils down to the fact that he learns new things quicky and assimilates them.

Case in point: you can post a link and think no bugger has bothered to look at it. Then sod me a couple of weeks later you realise that Benway has looked at it, thought it over, and understood what you took months to 'grok'.

N.B. He is impossible to lie to as well: I'm never going anyway near his couch.

Mind you though, I have to disagree with _J_'s point here.

Whilst using his magic lately, Dr Benway noted what a good idea it would be if you could search the comment threads by commenter ID. I agree (of course).

That is a bloody awful idea! This would mean that all of my posts could be read at once! Including my really early posts where I sounded an arrogant idiot because I didn't understand that a depressing proportion of the people on here are smarter than me.

No. Please!!! :-(

599. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74736 by Corylus on September 30, 2007 at 7:38 am

Pewkatchoo

Does anyone here really imagine for two bloody seconds that the Flea's 'just come back from the hospital scenario' has a grain of fact in it?

I been considering that possibility too. However, the mention of the age of the parent seemed to be a detail that didn't need making up: so I expect they exist.

Also, he is aware that some of the members of his Church's message board look here too.

If has made this up as debating point (to distract people from the fact that he was spectacularly losing an argument and without the guts to admit it).

Then he is not only a despicable individual, he has made a huge tactical error as well.

600. Teacher: I was fired, said Bible isn't literal

Comment #74572 by Corylus on September 29, 2007 at 3:05 pm

WeeFlea

Name one positive assertion about our shared reality that an atheist accepts a priori or without evidence that you don't likewise accept.

Naturalism. The belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces work in the world.

Seems to be that you have been reading the posts of a certain Dianelos. That's good - I have learnt a fair bit from him too.

(Incidentally this confirms my theory that you spend a fair amount of time visiting this site and not posting). In light of that I am surprised at your assertion that:

No attempt to made to engage at all with any religious people – because they are de facto deluded, stupid or hypocritical.

Oh for pity's sake David! There are over 2400 posts on the McGrath thread with us engaging with Dianelos. Pretty much every regular commentator on here has spoken to him. What's that? A fucking mirage?

Other people can reply to your statements in the middle of your post. However, your penultimate paragraph is truly reprehensible. (Even accounting for your being upset today)

I have just got back from hospital where I was visiting a 40 year old woman and her husband who had just had their first child. Got the phone call half an hour ago that the baby had just died. Somehow elephants in fridges seem somewhat trivial. At least for those of us who believe that we are more than 'throwaway survival machines'

Is that truly what you think atheists believe? That simply because we believe in no gods, that we also conclude that people are no more than 'throwaway survival machines'?

How. Dare. You.

To quote you back at yourself.

Such thinking will have severe consequences.

P.S. My deepest sympathies to the couple that have lost their child.